Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30255249›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2019

Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

Johannes Uhlig, Annemarie Uhlig, Lorenz Biggemann, Uwe Fischer, Joachim Lotz, Susanne Wienbeck

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Johannes UhligDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. Johannes.uhlig@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3557-3194
Annemarie UhligDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Lorenz BiggemannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Uwe FischerDiagnostic Breast Imaging Center, Goettingen, Germany.
Joachim LotzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Susanne WienbeckDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT).

resultsA total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I

conclusionThe evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveBreastCone-beam computed tomographyContrast mediaMeta-analysisRadiation dosage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.